The document discusses how the Internet is decreasing individuality in society. It argues that large tech companies act as information gatekeepers and influence society through convenience and promoting popular ideas over individual thought. This shifts society away from high culture towards popular culture and decreases critical thinking. As a result, individuals are producing and consuming information instead of developing their own views. The document agrees with Siegel and Carr's perspectives that the Internet hinders individual thinking and promotes distraction, which delays deciphering important information and forming independent opinions. If not addressed, this loss of individuality could negatively impact the prosperity of society.

1. The Internets Impact on Society: Decreasing Individuality
By Sarah Cerio-Stokes
Although we live in a democratic society, ironically we are
influenced by information gatekeepers who employ practices that go
against the idea of what it means to have equality and self-expression. A
tech giant’s ability to use the information highway known as the Internet
allows them to assert a high level of control and impact on society. Lee
Siegel argues, through convenience and the similarity of information
(atomization of information) society is moving away from individuality
and independence.
Through the power of the Internet, society is now practicing what
Siegel describes as prosumerism. This is a state where an individual is
either producing or consuming; the individual doesn’t have time to
cultivate his or her own thoughts because he/ she is subconsciously
looking for acceptance or revenue. As a result of the Internet’s ability to
portray a message to their liking, corporations in control of the Internet
are in power. Google being a gatekeeper of information rather than
knowledge is a primary example. Today, businesses pay Google to place
their names higher up in the search bar. As a result, information
becomes more popular and assessable and doesn’t guarantee quality, but
rather popularity. Society mistakenly believes popularity ensures quality
because it is what reaches users quickly and consecutively. According to
Siegel, in order to fix this problem Google must become a gatekeeper of
knowledge by allowing individuals to not only consume information but
also develop individualistic inferences.
The convenience provided through the Internet has shifted society
away from high culture to popular culture. Individual thinking practices
that promote a space for individual likes and dislike, such as expensive
restaurants that serve caviar and play classical music are no longer
favored. Through popular culture the level of individuality decreases and
convenience increases. Now, with search engines like Google at our
fingertips, critical thinking is not a requirement because the information

2. is conveniently provided. Also, Facebook and Instagram, social media
platforms that thrive off of the Internet, use tact’s such as “memes” to
drill messages into our brain in an appealing way.
Unknowingly, society is surrendering to the “gospel of popularity”
individuals within society are afraid to speak out. This is because the
media sets an example of what actions and thoughts are acceptable
verses not acceptable within society. A current example of this is
portrayed when NBA superstar Stephen Curry’s wife, Ayesha Curry,
took to Twitter to post, “Everyone can barely keep their clothes on these
days huh? Not my style. I like to keep the good stuff covered up for the
ones that matter” In a society that portrays naked pictures of Kim
Kardashian as beautiful and acceptable. Ayesha received backlash for
going against the popularity of what is praised. Subconsciously, society
sees this negative portrayal and chooses a side. They go along with the
popular idea because it is more acceptable and provides convenience.
Some do not see the Internet as a commercial culture, but rather a gift
because the financial transaction is low and people are able to spread
more knowledge. Commercial culture in fact leaves less room for
individuality. It is important to monitor the effects of popular
commercial culture so that, technology does not get flipped to control
culture by employing messages of racism the way Hitler once did and
Donald Trump is currently advocating.
In an effort to further explain the negative impact of the Internet,
Siegel compares pornography to technology. Pleasure has become
convenient through pornography and technology. As a result, both have
taken away out the need to directly socialize. Pornography takes away
the need for an emotional connection and provides the viewer with ideas
of how men and women should look and act sexually. Once again,
Internet users need to formulate their own opinions and not give into the
messages that are provided by tech giants. Also, instead of facing
emotions head-on, we hide behind text messages and chartrooms to
express ourselves in an effort to avoid possible judgment or rejection.
In connection, Nicholas Carr’s concerns and perspective further

3. fortifies how technology and Internet affect they way we think, learn,
communicate by creating a space for lack of individuality because we no
longer think abstractly. The Internet doesn’t shield us from distraction
because too much is going on. If we are not distracted, we have to
formulate our own thoughts, sit and work our brain; the Internet hinders
this process. For example, I feel more comfortable when I am able to
emulate the experience the Internet provides in real life. While listening
to a lecture, I feel compelled to look at my phone. I’ve become
subconsciously use to the need for a distraction present just as the easily
assessable Internet. In the way that we are now able to listen to a video
on YouTube and simultaneously read an article on a new tab.
Multitasking delays people from deciphering from what is important
because we believe we are quicker and smarter. (Carr)
I agree with both Siegel and Carr’s perspectives and advocating for
an increase of individuality and practice of individual thoughts rather
than convenience. These perspectives compliment each other because
Siegel provides the background rational behind the negative impact of
the Internet and Carr provides more of a detailed explanation of the
effects the Internet has. Also, the Internet being an oligopoly proves its
level of convenience because too much power is given to giant tech
companies resulting in limited creativity or individualism. From
personal experience, utilizing YouTube review videos to approve
standards of products to using movies to escape from having to exercise
my own mind are prime examples of the negative impact the Internet
provides. Consequently, it is imperative that society gets a handle on the
Internet now while it is still “young” or the government may in fact gain
control (current debate over net neutrality). If this happens, the loss of
individuality and creativity will stop the prosperity of society as a whole
because new ideas will not emerge.